616 réponses à ce sujet

[kalle90]

My issue is that more and more games are like ME2. Ninja Gaiden, Arkham Asylum, Bioshock, GTA, apparently Gears 3 and other action games get more and more RPG styled character improvement and choices. I have a feeling ME3 and Gears3 will feel very similiar, which can be good in the sense that they are both great, but it's a shame all games become so much like each other.



IMO ME3 should just go towards the roots of ME1 RPGwise while still having the smoother combat (no default regenerative health though, shields and armor parts were fine) and movement of ME2. If you find some skills useless ignore them, if you want to be able to use every weapon well pick the soldier class etc. The 2 second difference between power level 2 or 3 might not be much but it quickly cumulates into a very noticeable difference. The inventory of ME1 could also be tweaked with smaller text and icons (Like 3x3 table of mini-icons with a describsion box besides it) and adding options like "omni-gel all"



These things could even be controlled through difficulty options: if you want simple you choose "casual" and if you want complex you choose "hardcore". It's not like it's difficult to lock some skills. Both of the options could have a couple of different difficulty levels

[tonnactus]

The powers of Mass Effect have exactly 3 stages. Basic,advanced and master.All things between are just the "costs" to get those evolutions that offer only some minor improvements.

[Orchomene]

Alex_SM wrote...
The "tactical aspects" have never been a key point on RPGs. I've been years playing pnp RPGs and that's always a secondary point.

Totally wrong knowing that the first RPG ever designed was just a detailed wargame (see Gary Gigax history). Of course, tactics and strategy are an important part of RPGs even if the RPG has evolved and focus a lot less on this apsect than before.

Having "numbers" is not a default. If you don't want to see the numbers, then don't look at the numbers. But if you want to evaluate precisely the efficiency of someone doing something, it gives a lot of help versus having to compute some statistical model.

Playing on a computer allows the player to not have to worry about the computations at the action time since the computer does it alone. But having some quantitative way to compare some aspects gives some help when you are planing.
In ME2 you just have to go and see the wiki to have a comparison between weapons. Is that so hard to put some visual information in the game so that you don't have to check outside the game for this information ?

[Orchomene]

SuperMedbh wrote...
I suspect, but am not sure, that ME2 might be seen as one of the early examples of a game genre that has yet to have a formal name.

A new genre...

We can talk a lot about gameplay and numbers, but what is important in a RPG is the possibility to solve a problem with different strategies/using a different approach. Character customization is then an essential part of an RPG since it will give strength and weaknesses a character has, thus giving some freedom in some aspect and constraints in other.
With ME2, there is essentialy a single way to solve a quest, not always via a fight (but often) and customization of the character is 100% focused on combat. There is no stealth way, there is no real way to solve via discussions (or if yes, then this is the unique way).
We can consider all the quests in ME2 and see by ourself. The only choices are : failure in the quest (like in the Thane loyalty), refuse to do the quest, final decision (Samara/Morinth) or minor aspects having few consequences gameplay wise (Miranda loyalty, Jacob's, Mordin). Most of the quests have not at all any choice (Grunt's loyalty, most recruitments, the main quests).
ME2 is not a RPG, it's an action/adventure game.

Modifié par Orchomene, 14 juin 2010 - 12:28 .

[Orchomene]

slimgrin wrote...

@ at Orchomene..I agree with what you have said. I've mentioned Gygax and the history of RPG's before.

I've always felt the' auto level up' option was a nice compromise for those who don't want to get into the nitty gritty of managing your character.

At the end, the one that want just the story can put an auto-level and an AI doing the combats. This is like watching a movie. There are conversations, but the choice is very limited since in most cases, the only result is earning paragon or renegade points.

[Epic777]

Orchomene wrote...

SuperMedbh wrote...
I suspect, but am not sure, that ME2 might be seen as one of the early examples of a game genre that has yet to have a formal name.

A new genre...

We can talk a lot about gameplay and numbers, but what is important in a RPG is the possibility to solve a problem with different strategies/using a different approach. Character customization is then an essential part of an RPG since it will give strength and weaknesses a character has, thus giving some freedom in some aspect and constraints in other.
With ME2, there is essentialy a single way to solve a quest, not always via a fight (but often) and customization of the character is 100% focused on combat. There is no stealth way, there is no real way to solve via discussions (or if yes, then this is the unique way).
We can consider all the quests in ME2 and see by ourself. The only choices are : failure in the quest (like in the Thane loyalty), refuse to do the quest, final decision (Samara/Morinth) or minor aspects having few consequences gameplay wise (Miranda loyalty, Jacob's, Mordin). Most of the quests have not at all any choice (Grunt's loyalty, most recruitments, the main quests).
ME2 is not a RPG, it's an action/adventure game.

If thats the case me1 is no rpg either nor is BG.

Modifié par Epic777, 14 juin 2010 - 01:11 .

[Alex_SM]

Orchomene wrote...

Totally wrong knowing that the first RPG ever designed was just a detailed wargame (see Gary Gigax history). Of course, tactics and strategy are an important part of RPGs even if the RPG has evolved and focus a lot less on this apsect than before.

First video game was about tennis and that doesn't make sports to be a key point in every video game. 

Strategy is not a key point in a pnp RPG nowadays, even combat is not always something important. You can have full sessions without a single combat. 

And while having combats, "my people" (and really nearly everyone I know who plays pnp RPGs) usually tries to get the closer possible to a real-time combat. You can't plan  your move for 10 minutes while you talk to the others to make a strategy, you have to decide fast and it's forbidden to tell the rest anything that you wouldn't have time to say in the 5-6 seconds that lasts the turn. 

Otherwise combat loses the whole tension the situation could have.
Spending 20 minutes in every single turn is clearly not the point. 

Having "numbers" is not a default. If you don't want to see the numbers, then don't look at the numbers. But if you want to evaluate precisely the efficiency of someone doing something, it gives a lot of help versus having to compute some statistical model.

Playing on a computer allows the player to not have to worry about the computations at the action time since the computer does it alone. But having some quantitative way to compare some aspects gives some help when you are planing.

In ME2 is plain obvious who is better doing the different tasks, and if you have doubts you simply have to took them into a mission and test them. 

In ME2 you just have to go and see the wiki to have a comparison between weapons. Is that so hard to put some visual information in the game so that you don't have to check outside the game for this information ?

It's easy, use the weapons. I tried the different versions and then decided what was better for me to use. Never checked any place. 

 

[Alex_SM]

Epic777 wrote...

If thats the case me1 is no rpg either nor is BG.

Being precisse no computer RPG is a real RPG. Maybe the closest thing i've ever seen is the Fallout saga. But still lacks several options. 

Playing Vampire: Requiem i've seen once how a initial character killed the most npc of the story the first day with a combination of inventiveness and luck. He died to, but since that momment the main quest was blown up and everything changed. 

Or playing D&D where the chosen one with the "epic mighty magical sword that blablabla" who had to save the world got pregnant and had to fight the bad guys with several penalties related to her condition. 

Or one in Star Wars where one character decided to kill every other squad member (in the story it was coherent) and just did it screwing the whole quest.

Computer games don't allow you to do that kind of things, they can't face unexpected things. 

[Orchomene]

Alex_SM wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

Totally wrong knowing that the first RPG ever designed was just a detailed wargame (see Gary Gigax history). Of course, tactics and strategy are an important part of RPGs even if the RPG has evolved and focus a lot less on this apsect than before.

First video game was about tennis and that doesn't make sports to be a key point in every video game. 

Strategy is not a key point in a pnp RPG nowadays, even combat is not always something important. You can have full sessions without a single combat. 

And while having combats, "my people" (and really nearly everyone I know who plays pnp RPGs) usually tries to get the closer possible to a real-time combat. You can't plan  your move for 10 minutes while you talk to the others to make a strategy, you have to decide fast and it's forbidden to tell the rest anything that you wouldn't have time to say in the 5-6 seconds that lasts the turn. 

Otherwise combat loses the whole tension the situation could have.
Spending 20 minutes in every single turn is clearly not the point. 

This is your way to play RPGs. I've been playing RPGs for twenty years and this kind of combat resolution was only applied in Paranoïa for obvious reasons. For me, PnP RPG is about thinking and creating solution. Not specifically about rushing. You can play chess taking your time or with a clock. Both are valid way to play it. With ME2, there is no choice at all to have strategy : you are put into combat at some fixed position.
It's true that no cRPG is like a PnP RPG. That's not the point. The point is having a game close to what is a RPG. When playing a flight simulator, it's of course not like piloting a plane. For RPG, the point is giving choices in resolution, some beeing more difficult and facing consequences. I love when in a game I can only see half of it in one playthrough since some choices are mutually exclusive. I would have prefer that doing the Miranda loyalty quest would have blocked the Jack one. The only exclusive choice I see is Morinth vs Samara. And that is very short since it's being at the end of the quest, this doesn't close a lot of the game. For this, BG2 is better. Some quest are class related. The top being Fallout1/2.
That's a big difference between BW and Obsidian. Obsidian has always been above BW in terms of RPG gameplay. That's why NWN2 and Kotor 2 are far better than the first one. Only those that don't really like RPG would say the contrary.

[kalle90]

tonnactus wrote...

The powers of Mass Effect have exactly 3 stages. Basic,advanced and master.All things between are just the "costs" to get those evolutions that offer only some minor improvements.

Wasn't the case atleast for me. Sure it was nice there were some bigger steps, but the difference between 3 and 5 second lift is quite worth it in itself. Afterall even the bigger powers are somewhat useless if you play on normal difficulty. Just a good weapon is enough
Not saying the system was perfect though.

[Kalfear]

Orchomene wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

Totally wrong knowing that the first RPG ever designed was just a detailed wargame (see Gary Gigax history). Of course, tactics and strategy are an important part of RPGs even if the RPG has evolved and focus a lot less on this apsect than before.

First video game was about tennis and that doesn't make sports to be a key point in every video game. 

Strategy is not a key point in a pnp RPG nowadays, even combat is not always something important. You can have full sessions without a single combat. 

And while having combats, "my people" (and really nearly everyone I know who plays pnp RPGs) usually tries to get the closer possible to a real-time combat. You can't plan  your move for 10 minutes while you talk to the others to make a strategy, you have to decide fast and it's forbidden to tell the rest anything that you wouldn't have time to say in the 5-6 seconds that lasts the turn. 

Otherwise combat loses the whole tension the situation could have.
Spending 20 minutes in every single turn is clearly not the point. 

This is your way to play RPGs. I've been playing RPGs for twenty years and this kind of combat resolution was only applied in Paranoïa for obvious reasons. For me, PnP RPG is about thinking and creating solution. Not specifically about rushing. You can play chess taking your time or with a clock. Both are valid way to play it. With ME2, there is no choice at all to have strategy : you are put into combat at some fixed position.
It's true that no cRPG is like a PnP RPG. That's not the point. The point is having a game close to what is a RPG. When playing a flight simulator, it's of course not like piloting a plane. For RPG, the point is giving choices in resolution, some beeing more difficult and facing consequences. I love when in a game I can only see half of it in one playthrough since some choices are mutually exclusive. I would have prefer that doing the Miranda loyalty quest would have blocked the Jack one. The only exclusive choice I see is Morinth vs Samara. And that is very short since it's being at the end of the quest, this doesn't close a lot of the game. For this, BG2 is better. Some quest are class related. The top being Fallout1/2.
That's a big difference between BW and Obsidian. Obsidian has always been above BW in terms of RPG gameplay. That's why NWN2 and Kotor 2 are far better than the first one. Only those that don't really like RPG would say the contrary.

(claps)

well said!

Sadly this will go right over their heads but someone needed to say it, well said!

[KitsuneRommel]

Orchomene wrote...

That's a big difference between BW and Obsidian. Obsidian has always been above BW in terms of RPG gameplay. That's why NWN2 and Kotor 2 are far better than the first one. Only those that don't really like RPG would say the contrary.

And Bethesda is head and shoulders above both.

[SuperMedbh]

Orchomene wrote...
It's true that no cRPG is like a PnP RPG. That's not the point. The point is having a game close to what is a RPG. When playing a flight simulator, it's of course not like piloting a plane.

So long as we think of cCRPGs as paper based RPG "simulators", cRPGs will not reach their full potential.  Instead, we'll be annoyed at the limitations of gameplay--  it's almost impossible to think of a computer game that could ever provide all the choices that a skilled gamester can.  In Pnp, a character can be invented instantly, if needed.  In a computer game, modeling a character (let alone voicing him or her!) takes weeks. 

But what a computer game can provide is a different sort of game play.  I'm not just talking about real time action sequences, although fluidity is a benefit.  But let's face it, who here has played in a group with professional actors? (actually, I did once--  nobody famous, but made her living that way.  God, she was hilarious)  Or even if Claudia Black routinely sits in on your D&D sessions, the ability to literally visualize environments in detail is huge.  But resources are limited.  The more detailed an environment is, the fewer of those environments will exist.  And that will limit your choices.

That's why I think the cinematic nature of ME2 is a step in a right direction.  Not the only direction future cRPGs can take, but an intriguing one.  It is essentially a scripted movie, and choices are reduced to a few key points, as well as character development subtleties.  But no matter what, you're going to hit the main plot points and end up at that final battle.  To use an analogy, you're the director, not the screenwriter. 

Is it RPG?  It depends utterly upon whether your definition encompasses that sort of game.  I've enjoyed ME, DA:O and paper D&D.  But I wouldn't call those three types of RPGs equivalent.

[Epic777]

Kalfear wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

Totally wrong knowing that the first RPG ever designed was just a detailed wargame (see Gary Gigax history). Of course, tactics and strategy are an important part of RPGs even if the RPG has evolved and focus a lot less on this apsect than before.

First video game was about tennis and that doesn't make sports to be a key point in every video game. 

Strategy is not a key point in a pnp RPG nowadays, even combat is not always something important. You can have full sessions without a single combat. 

And while having combats, "my people" (and really nearly everyone I know who plays pnp RPGs) usually tries to get the closer possible to a real-time combat. You can't plan  your move for 10 minutes while you talk to the others to make a strategy, you have to decide fast and it's forbidden to tell the rest anything that you wouldn't have time to say in the 5-6 seconds that lasts the turn. 

Otherwise combat loses the whole tension the situation could have.
Spending 20 minutes in every single turn is clearly not the point. 

This is your way to play RPGs. I've been playing RPGs for twenty years and this kind of combat resolution was only applied in Paranoïa for obvious reasons. For me, PnP RPG is about thinking and creating solution. Not specifically about rushing. You can play chess taking your time or with a clock. Both are valid way to play it. With ME2, there is no choice at all to have strategy : you are put into combat at some fixed position.
It's true that no cRPG is like a PnP RPG. That's not the point. The point is having a game close to what is a RPG. When playing a flight simulator, it's of course not like piloting a plane. For RPG, the point is giving choices in resolution, some beeing more difficult and facing consequences. I love when in a game I can only see half of it in one playthrough since some choices are mutually exclusive. I would have prefer that doing the Miranda loyalty quest would have blocked the Jack one. The only exclusive choice I see is Morinth vs Samara. And that is very short since it's being at the end of the quest, this doesn't close a lot of the game. For this, BG2 is better. Some quest are class related. The top being Fallout1/2.
That's a big difference between BW and Obsidian. Obsidian has always been above BW in terms of RPG gameplay. That's why NWN2 and Kotor 2 are far better than the first one. Only those that don't really like RPG would say the contrary.

(claps)

well said!

Sadly this will go right over their heads but someone needed to say it, well said!

Again I would applaude this but I see very few RPGs do what you what you say. KOTOR 2 was not a tactial game especially since force storm could be abused like crazy and I don't see any big descions you made in KOTOR 2 that effected the game apart from lightside/darkside. I played NWN 2 (OC), absolutely hated it and never finished it so I will not comment about it. BG2, how many descions were you actually making? All there was good/evil binary choices, if you choose evil choices good party memembers may leave or vice versa. The hard choices just ended up being binary good/evil binary choices, the consequences being the same. I would like to see more of the Ashley Williams/Kaidan Alenko choice from me1 in all RPGs because of a few reasons:
    1. Its not a moral choice, its not about good/evil or paragon/reneadge
    2. No third option
    3. There is something to lose in a romance interest and a squadmate

However even in this there is a risk, killing off popular characters due in this kind of way will ****** off many, Tali or Garrus will lead to riots. See Deus Ex:IW and you know what I mean.

--------------------------------
On a side note Obsidian may make a good RPG but they dont make good games.
KOTOR 2 was a better game than KOTOR.......on paper, better story, better characters especially kreia however too many techincal failures and lack of polish left only what could have been. NWN2 had many technical issues.

[Alex_SM]

Orchomene wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

Totally wrong knowing that the first RPG ever designed was just a detailed wargame (see Gary Gigax history). Of course, tactics and strategy are an important part of RPGs even if the RPG has evolved and focus a lot less on this apsect than before.

First video game was about tennis and that doesn't make sports to be a key point in every video game. 

Strategy is not a key point in a pnp RPG nowadays, even combat is not always something important. You can have full sessions without a single combat. 

And while having combats, "my people" (and really nearly everyone I know who plays pnp RPGs) usually tries to get the closer possible to a real-time combat. You can't plan  your move for 10 minutes while you talk to the others to make a strategy, you have to decide fast and it's forbidden to tell the rest anything that you wouldn't have time to say in the 5-6 seconds that lasts the turn. 

Otherwise combat loses the whole tension the situation could have.
Spending 20 minutes in every single turn is clearly not the point. 

This is your way to play RPGs. I've been playing RPGs for twenty years and this kind of combat resolution was only applied in Paranoïa for obvious reasons. For me, PnP RPG is about thinking and creating solution. Not specifically about rushing. You can play chess taking your time or with a clock. Both are valid way to play it. With ME2, there is no choice at all to have strategy : you are put into combat at some fixed position.
It's true that no cRPG is like a PnP RPG. That's not the point. The point is having a game close to what is a RPG. When playing a flight simulator, it's of course not like piloting a plane. For RPG, the point is giving choices in resolution, some beeing more difficult and facing consequences. I love when in a game I can only see half of it in one playthrough since some choices are mutually exclusive. I would have prefer that doing the Miranda loyalty quest would have blocked the Jack one. The only exclusive choice I see is Morinth vs Samara. And that is very short since it's being at the end of the quest, this doesn't close a lot of the game. For this, BG2 is better. Some quest are class related. The top being Fallout1/2.
That's a big difference between BW and Obsidian. Obsidian has always been above BW in terms of RPG gameplay. That's why NWN2 and Kotor 2 are far better than the first one. Only those that don't really like RPG would say the contrary.

I don't agree with the strategy point, in a game about playing a character I don't get the point of having combat without feeling the stress the character could be feeling. So the combat should be played the closer possible to real-time (in PC the closer is real time itself). As long as I love the fallout saga I hated the long combats who involved many npcs (in Fallout 1/2), I ended up just avoiding every combat I could until I found the alien gun which kills everyone in a single shot. There was no emotion or stress playing that combats. 

But I agree in your point about decisions. I have always felt that we need a game where the main story have different paths depending on what you chose to do with different characters, scenarios, endings, etc... So two main stories would be completely different just changing the first or the second chose you make. I don't know how it's said in english, somehow like a tree chart.  

For now there is no game at all which offers this (at least I don't know any). I hope someone tries that soon. 

[Lumikki]

Orchomene wrote...

This is your way to play RPGs. I've been playing RPGs for twenty years and this kind of combat resolution was only applied in Paranoïa for obvious reasons. For me, PnP RPG is about thinking and creating solution. Not specifically about rushing. You can play chess taking your time or with a clock. Both are valid way to play it. With ME2, there is no choice at all to have strategy : you are put into combat at some fixed position.

I'm not sure. There is some non-combat way to deal situations in ME2. Example if You play paragon, you can sometimes solve situation with diplomatic ways as talking. Also when I played infiltrator the stealth opened few options beoynd normal frontal combat.  If you mean that story is pretty pre-defined and players actions doesn't really matter so much. That's normal to most computer games, you can't go agaist story with actions. So comparing PnP RPG to computer RPG is totally different situation. Computer aren't creative, humans are.

[AlanC9]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

That's a big difference between BW and Obsidian. Obsidian has always been above BW in terms of RPG gameplay. That's why NWN2 and Kotor 2 are far better than the first one. Only those that don't really like RPG would say the contrary.

And Bethesda is head and shoulders above both.

Depends on what you're looking for in an RPG, doesn't it? For me, Bethesda games fail by design at most of what I want from an RPG. But that's a flamewar for another time.

[FlyingWalrus]

Nice to see my point was gladly ignored. Let me reiterate:

The same system will not work for every setting. While Fallout 1 was a good RPG, its system would definitely not work in something as story-driven as Mass Effect.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about. Both KoTOR2 and NWN2 were terrible, unfinished games.

[AlanC9]

Orchomene wrote...
This is your way to play RPGs. I've been playing RPGs for twenty years and this kind of combat resolution was only applied in Paranoïa for obvious reasons. For me, PnP RPG is about thinking and creating solution. Not specifically about rushing. You can play chess taking your time or with a clock. Both are valid way to play it. With ME2, there is no choice at all to have strategy : you are put into combat at some fixed position.

It's true that no cRPG is like a PnP RPG. That's not the point. The point is having a game close to what is a RPG.
[When playing a flight simulator, it's of course not like piloting a plane. For RPG, the point is giving choices in resolution, some beeing more difficult and facing consequences.

The problem is, it's pretty clear that the two of you have a different opinion as to what an RPG is, and what RPG combat shoudl be. Lots of tactical choices doesn't go well with actually recreating the feeling of being the character involved in the tactical combat, and a single game just isn't going to do both of these well.

PnP groups go all sorts of different ways. My old groups tended to emphasize frantic action over planning -- most gamemasters wouldn't let players talk about tactics during a fight unless it was in character, and even then there would be strict limits on how long you could talk before blowing your turn. Some PnP players I've talked to find this approach horrifying.

Also note that original D&D was designed to be chaotic -- you couldn't plan the combat round in any detailed fashion because moves have to be called before the initiative rolls. 3.0 took a huge step away from this, of course.

@ FlyingWalrus -- well, at least I didn't ignore you

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 juin 2010 - 11:43 .

[Pocketgb]

AlanC9 wrote...

Depends on what you're looking for in an RPG, doesn't it? For me, Bethesda games fail by design at most of what I want from an RPG. But that's a flamewar for another time.

I'm a huge Bethesda fan, have been since I was little since I started playing Daggerfall.

I'm also a huge Bioware fan, ever since I got into NWN.

Both developers cater to different aspects of role-playing. To criticize you for not liking Bethesda's games is akin to criticizing your favorite color, and vice versa.



FLAMEWAR RESOLVED!

Also, I just want to quote this one more time:

AlanC9 wrote...

Bethesda games fail by design at most of what I want from an RPG.

Now everyone needs to reread the above passage at least five times.

What it is NOT is this:

NotAlanC9butanexample wrote...

Bethesda games fail at RPGs.

Everyone clear? Good.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 14 juin 2010 - 11:33 .

[SSV Enterprise]

Pocketgb wrote...

Both developers cater to different aspects of role-playing. To criticize you for not liking Bethesda's games is akin to criticizing your favorite color, and vice versa.

Well said.  QFT

[AlanC9]

slimgrin wrote...

Lol...this thread seems to get nowhere. Is it too radical to suggest ME2 could have had deeper strategy without sacrificing story or character?

Deeper like what?

[FlyingWalrus]

slimgrin wrote...

Lol...this thread seems to get nowhere. Is it too radical to suggest ME2 could have had deeper strategy without sacrificing story or character?

I, too, would like to know what you mean by "deeper." If you mean "more talents and powers to choose from," I'm onboard. If you mean "reducing all abilities to some statistical measurement," for the sake of having a statistical measurement, count me out.

To reiterate, I think it's reasonable that some things, like Shepard's ability to shoot straight with whatever weapon he's trained in, can be readily assumed and cut out of the development tree, much like how certain weapon proficiencies are automatically granted to a D&D character based on what class they are.